Human Co-operation

[Michael]

Bonobos share more DNA (98.7 percent) with us than they do with gorillas — enough so that under his glossy black hair Mikeno has the body of a young athlete, complete with chiseled biceps and a developing six-pack. The question is: where among the three billion nucleotides of his genome is the 1.3 percent that makes Mikeno a bonobo instead of a human?

We have been seeking to define our humanity for thousands of years. Plato described a human being as a featherless creature that walks on two legs; in response, Diogenes turned up at one of Plato's lectures holding a plucked chicken. Other
definitions have come and gone: Only humans use tools. Only humans intentionally murder one another. Only humans have souls. Like mirages in the desert, the definitions are always shifting.

In the six million years since hominids split from the evolutionary ancestor we share with chimpanzees and bonobos, something happened to our brains that allowed us to become master cooperators, accumulate knowledge at a rapid rate, and manipulate tools to colonize almost every corner of the planet. In evolutionary time, our progress has been swift and ruthless. What allowed us to come down from the trees, and why?

Article (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/woods_hare09/woods_hare09_index.html)

This is an excellent article (fairly long and dry) that reviews some of the research on this topic.

Of particular interest is the experiments with chimps and dogs (and wolves) to determine just how much of this behavior is geneticly adapted or learned. Some of the results may surprise you!

[Greendruid]

Article (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/woods_hare09/woods_hare09_index.html)

This is an excellent article (fairly long and dry) that reviews some of the research on this topic.

Of particular interest is the experiments with chimps and dogs (and wolves) to determine just how much of this behavior is geneticly adapted or learned. Some of the results may surprise you!

This is an argument I am annually charged with the task of addressing in my introductory course. My students are always shocked at the suggestions I start to make when I point out the very grey areas between us and other species like us.

The hallmark of Culture itself is probably the best thing we can pin our humanity on but we have to be careful when doing so. In my introductory courses I begin by pointing out the definition of Culture and one anthropologist's (Michael Park) four points that have to be met in order to satisfy the definition of a cultural behaviour. These are:

1. Must be learned
2. Must be extragenetically transmitted (i.e., taught)
3. Must involve artefacts (material or abstract)
4. Must involve concepts, generalisations, abstractions, assumptions and ideas

I then go on to give them numerous examples from the (common) chimpanzee repertoire of behaviours that qualify on all of these points including termite fishing, nut-cracking and displaying involving sticks. I can elaborate on any of these if anyone is interested.

The point that I force the students into is to recognise that at least one other species is capable of cultural behaviours and has a capacity for culture. So, we have to return to the question, what makes us human?

The answer is perhaps an uneasy one but demonstrated quick vividly by late 19th and early 20th century abuses of orphans. While other species have cultural behaviours, our species is cultural. Remove these behaviours from a chimpanzee's daily life and they are still a chimpanzee suffering no ill effects in its ability to function as such. Remove culture from a human being and you no longer have a human being. Visualise, if you will, a human being devoid of the following cultural behaviours, material and abstract:

- clothing
- language
- shelter
- teaching/learning
- sharing of ideas
- fire
- tools

You can probably guess that we are left with some Hollywood version of the feral child or tarzan. The fact is that our legacy is one of unbroken teaching and learning from our ancestors. If you break this chain, and it only needs to be done during a very small window in the lifespan of a person during their childhood, you will have a non-human being. I have no other word for the result. They cannot be re-integrated after a certain age. Anytime this was attempted in the past has resulted in the permanent incarceration of the individuals in question. This, I think, verifies the fact that the human being is utterly and completely dependent on Culture for its self-definition and existence as such.

[Michael]

This is an argument I am annually charged with the task of addressing in my introductory course. My students are always shocked at the suggestions I start to make when I point out the very grey areas between us and other species like us.

The hallmark of Culture itself is probably the best thing we can pin our humanity on but we have to be careful when doing so. In my introductory courses I begin by pointing out the definition of Culture and one anthropologist's (Michael Park) four points that have to be met in order to satisfy the definition of a cultural behaviour. These are:

1. Must be learned
2. Must be extragenetically transmitted (i.e., taught)
3. Must involve artefacts (material or abstract)
4. Must involve concepts, generalisations, abstractions, assumptions and ideas

I then go on to give them numerous examples from the (common) chimpanzee repertoire of behaviours that qualify on all of these points including termite fishing, nut-cracking and displaying involving sticks. I can elaborate on any of these if anyone is interested.
I'd be very interested in your illustration/example of point number 4. :)

Points 1-3 seem to be well established points. Btw, as far as I know, the evidence of chimps learning how to fish in a pond by dropping little pieces of grass on the surface to draw the fish up to the surface - behavior that has been observed and well documented as 'learned' in zoo environments and then spread by chimp transfers between zoos is the most impressive evidence of 'learned culture'.

Tool using seems to be fairly common, with at least a half dozen spieces doing it - just about anyone with the opposable thumb seems to be into that trick.

I'd have to say that control of fire seems to be a particularly human act - mastering the control of energy.

The point that I force the students into is to recognise that at least one other species is capable of cultural behaviours and has a capacity for culture. So, we have to return to the question, what makes us human?

The answer is perhaps an uneasy one but demonstrated quick vividly by late 19th and early 20th century abuses of orphans. While other species have cultural behaviours, our species is cultural. Remove these behaviours from a chimpanzee's daily life and they are still a chimpanzee suffering no ill effects in its ability to function as such. Remove culture from a human being and you no longer have a human being. Visualise, if you will, a human being devoid of the following cultural behaviours, material and abstract:

- clothing
- language
- shelter
- teaching/learning
- sharing of ideas
- fire
- tools

You can probably guess that we are left with some Hollywood version of the feral child or tarzan. The fact is that our legacy is one of unbroken teaching and learning from our ancestors. If you break this chain, and it only needs to be done during a very small window in the lifespan of a person during their childhood, you will have a non-human being. I have no other word for the result. They cannot be re-integrated after a certain age. Anytime this was attempted in the past has resulted in the permanent incarceration of the individuals in question. This, I think, verifies the fact that the human being is utterly and completely dependent on Culture for its self-definition and existence as such.
Excellent answer - I must agree entirely. :)

Humans are defined by the fact that we are entirely and totally dependent upon our human social culture. Without that, we cease to be human.

Btw, I might add that this idea forms an integral part to my critique/rejection of social contract theory. ;)

[andrewl]

While other species have cultural behaviours, our species is cultural. Remove these behaviours from a chimpanzee's daily life and they are still a chimpanzee suffering no ill effects in its ability to function as such.

This is not at all clear to me. To the extent that any other animal has culture, i would wager that it is a vital aspect of their ability to survive as a species. Why else would they have culture if it did not serve a function integral to what they are.

Andrew

[andrewl]

Here is one completely unique aspect of humans that perhaps set us apart from any other species and makes us human.

We make food a commodity. No other species gathers and stores food, keeps it under lock and key, for the express purpose of resale.

Andrew

[dilettante]

Here is one completely unique aspect of humans that perhaps set us apart from any other species and makes us human.

We make food a commodity. No other species gathers and stores food, keeps it under lock and key, for the express purpose of resale.

Andrew

But is that a universal human trait or a culturally specific one?

[andrewl]

But is that a universal human trait or a culturally specific one?

I would say it is culturally specific, but it has only come to be in one specific species.

What i mean is that only the human species has done this, but not all human cultures have done it.

Andrew

[dilettante]

I would say it is culturally specific, but it has only come to be in one specific species.

What i mean is that only the human species has done this, but not all human cultures have done it.

Andrew

Yes. I think you're probably right.

I wonder if it could be broadened to include any form of comodification? Does any other species regularly store up or retain any item with the primary intention of trading it for something else?

I think just about all human cultures partake in this practice to some degree, even those without money. Whether its saving up cows to buy a wife or collecting shells to exchange as part of a peace treaty, its still collecting together something primarily in order to exchange it for something else. I don't know of any animals who do that (but then I don't know much about animals).

[andrewl]

Yes. I think you're probably right.

I wonder if it could be broadened to include any form of comodification? Does any other species regularly store up or retain any item with the primary intention of trading it for something else?

I think just about all human cultures partake in this practice to some degree, even those without money. Whether its saving up cows to buy a wife or collecting shells to exchange as part of a peace treaty, its still collecting together something primarily in order to exchange it for something else. I don't know of any animals who do that (but then I don't know much about animals).

No, i can't think of any other animals that trade either.

Andrew

[The Drunk Girl]

Skeptic (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-08-08#feature)

I really want to get back to this, but some company just showed up :D

[SMadsen]

No, i can't think of any other animals that trade either.

Andrew
Depends on what you can accept of currency.

As The Drunk Girl points out with the link (or so I think, I haven't read it yet), the currency used is often sex. Either directly or indirectly. A currency that we humans don't exactly try to avoid, either :)

[Michael]

I've read the article Drunk Girl linked to.

I don't think that bonobo sex qualifies as trade or currency.

The bonobos don't actually seem to 'trade' sex for favors (from the info given in the article). They seem to do 'sexual things' - like sexualized greetings and such. Similarly, they don't seem to actually 'trade' sex for food - rather they use sexual behavior to establish more generally cooperative behavior.

[The Drunk Girl]

I've read the article Drunk Girl linked to.

I don't think that bonobo sex qualifies as trade or currency.

The bonobos don't actually seem to 'trade' sex for favors (from the info given in the article). They seem to do 'sexual things' - like sexualized greetings and such. Similarly, they don't seem to actually 'trade' sex for food - rather they use sexual behavior to establish more generally cooperative behavior.

1. I agree here.

When I read what you had originally posted, it automatically sparked my memory of reading this article in Skeptic. Although, I didn't have time to finish my thought(s) yesterday (which go with the earlier postings), I thought I would go ahead and leave the link.

2. It is amazing to see and hear just how close their actions are to humans. And, I suppose what really intrigued me with the article was just how meticulous and violent these creatures are...much like humans. Sure other animals fight to mark their territory, but bonobos fight much like humans do: it seems as though they go to the extreme to fight dirty and to make an example of one another.

3. In response to Greendruid, I agree for the most part on cultural behavior. But, my problem (or question) is and always has been with point number one: it must be learned. Yes, for the most part humans and other species act accordingly to situations from that which they have learned; that being either through their own personal experiences, seeing it presented through another member of their society, etc. But, what about the "animal instinct" that is within all of us?

Are those actions/responses truly "learned" when they are innate?...there is nothing to learn there, right? It's just natural.

[Michael]

3. In response to Greendruid, I agree for the most part on cultural behavior. But, my problem (or question) is and always has been with point number one: it must be learned. Yes, for the most part humans and other species act accordingly to situations from that which they have learned; that being either through their own personal experiences, seeing it presented through another member of their society, etc. But, what about the "animal instinct" that is within all of us?

Are those actions/responses truly "learned" when they are innate?...there is nothing to learn there, right? It's just natural.

Well, it must be admitted that other animals do engage in teaching their young how to hunt or forage for food. Foraging might come naturally by instinct, but hunting prey must certainly be a 'learned' skill that parents teach to young.

For example, a lion raised in a nursery without ever seeing other lions or the wild, might never be entirely 'tame', but would almost certainly be incapable of hunting/feeding themselves in the wild (I'm speculating here) - instinct might be there, but skill/training is a significant part of successful hunting I'm sure.

That being said, I do think there is a semi-common set of 'instincts' that humans have that they may share with most other mammals - the instinct for self-preservation, sexual-propagation, flight/fight impulse, defending the young, etc. These instincts seem common to most mammals and don't seem to need to be taught.

Ergo, behavior is always a combination of instincts and cultural training. With some creatures, the cultural component is greater or lesser than others. Humans obviously depend upon it almost entirely (at the expense of instincts). I'm sure some less complex creatures use almost no culture at all and depend entirely on instinct (i.e. genetic programming) to function. Other animals fall somewhere in between.

[Michael]

This is not at all clear to me. To the extent that any other animal has culture, i would wager that it is a vital aspect of their ability to survive as a species. Why else would they have culture if it did not serve a function integral to what they are.

Andrew

Damn good point. As I noted in my post above, I believe most animals do engage in some form of culture by teaching young how to hunt/forage successfully.

That has to be considered a form of 'culture' since it is learned behavior.